For the sake of historic correctness, the Community Preservation Committee, and the Historical Society made it mandatory that historically correct single pane windows, a slate roof, and wainscoting be installed, otherwise $1.6 million in Community Preservation Funds would not be available to the town. The building committee bought it.
A member of CPC was quoted as saying that "thermal-pane windows would have been very noticeable, unattractive and not historic".
Really? Noticeable? By whom? From where? The CPC supports storms windows instead. How are they historically correct? They may be historically correct for 1959, but I don't think that was the era they were going for.
So, it was the historic look, and feel, we were going for in our $5.2 million dollar restoration of an old, drafty building in which we conduct our town business. We weren't going for safety of town hall employees, and visitors, by shoring up the building with new supports, electrical and heating systems? It was all for that certain historic look?
Then why the hell are there indoor toilets, an oil fired furnace, electric lights, and an elevator to assist those unable to navigate the stairs instead of a hay hoist from some second floor window to haul them up to meetings?
Stupidity, can be hereditary, but more often, it's contagious.
From the Telegram article:
"But even without storm windows on the restored windows, heating costs have dropped since the renovation.
“From the last full fiscal year that the building was occupied prior to the renovation to the first full year of occupancy since, the Town Hall required 7.2 percent less oil per square foot than prior to the renovation,” said Town Administrator Shaun A. Suhoski. “Certainly, weather patterns play a key role in fuel consumption, but, also the renovations, which included repair of all windows to eliminate drafts as well as additional attic insulation, have helped to control heating costs.” "
“From the last full fiscal year that the building was occupied prior to the renovation to the first full year of occupancy since, the Town Hall required 7.2 percent less oil per square foot than prior to the renovation,” said Town Administrator Shaun A. Suhoski. “Certainly, weather patterns play a key role in fuel consumption, but, also the renovations, which included repair of all windows to eliminate drafts as well as additional attic insulation, have helped to control heating costs.” "
The town hall has used "7.2% less oil per square foot than prior to renovation".
Big whoop.
We replaced our windows in our 150 year old home with Harvey insulated windows a few years ago. We immediately saw a 36% savings in heating oil.
36% savings, and that is without any insulation in these old walls. We recently underwent an energy audit by MassSaves, and they confirmed it.
I'd keep the excitement about a 7.2 % savings confined to internal memos, suck it up, and replace the windows.
Historic correctness is great, if appropriate, but folks can get a bit obsessed with it.
Cripes, its a good thing we can't hear a toilet flush from outside the building, otherwise the CPC would have us install a two-holer in the parking lot.
Click here for the Worcester Telegram article.
Click here for the Worcester Telegram article.
Yeah! And don't forget that it's been a mild winter, so the 7.2% "savings" include a generous gift from Mother Nature.
ReplyDeleteTHEY MAY SAY THAT THE OIL CONSUMPTION HAS DECREASED 7.2% BUT DID ANY FACTOR IN WE ARE HEATING TWO BUILDINGS NOW NOT JUST THE OLD TOWN HALL. MY QUESTION IS TO THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTROLING THIS MONEY,WHO'S BEST INTEREST ARE THEY REALLY LOOKING AFTER, THE TAXPAYER? NOT REALLY.
ReplyDelete